Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGCA 20
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of decision: 7 July 2023
- Case title: Owner of the vessel(s) “NAVIGATOR ARIES” (IMO No. 9403762) v Owner of the vessel(s) “LEO PERDANA” (IMO No. 9363390)
- Procedural context: Admiralty in rem; collision proceedings arising from two reciprocal in rem actions
- Civil Appeal No: Civil Appeal No 45 of 2022
- Judges: Judith Prakash JCA, Steven Chong JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA
- Appellant: Owner of the vessel “NAVIGATOR ARIES” (IMO No. 9403762) (“NA”)
- Respondent: Owner of the vessel “LEO PERDANA” (IMO No. 9363390) (“LP”)
- Trial court (High Court): High Court judge (“the Judge”)
- Admiralty actions: Admiralty in Rem No 170 of 2016 (against “LEO PERDANA”); Admiralty in Rem No 204 of 2016 (against “NAVIGATOR ARIES”)
- Legal area: Admiralty and Shipping — Collision
- Core issue on appeal: Apportionment of liability for a port sheer and resulting collision in the Surabaya Strait; interpretation of COLREGS Rule 9(a)
- Key factual setting: Collision just before midnight on 28 June 2015 in the Surabaya Strait, Indonesia, between vessels on reciprocal courses within a buoyed narrow channel and dredged channel
- Vessel types and sizes: NA: LPG tanker (gross registered tonnage 18,311mt; length ~160m; beam ~25.6m). LP: container ship (gross registered tonnage 27,104mt; length ~200m; breadth ~32.2m)
- Trial apportionment: 70:30 in favour of LP
- Court of Appeal apportionment: 50:50 (both vessels equally to blame)
- Length of judgment: 81 pages, 21,248 words
- Reported citation availability: LawNet / Singapore Law Reports (subject to editorial corrections)
Summary
This Court of Appeal decision concerns a maritime collision in the Surabaya Strait, Indonesia, between the LPG tanker “Navigator Aries” and the container vessel “Leo Perdana”. The collision occurred just before midnight on 28 June 2015, with both vessels sustaining serious damage and a fire breaking out on the LPG tanker. Both vessels were under compulsory pilotage and were navigating on reciprocal courses within a buoyed narrow channel that included a dredged section.
The High Court judge found that the proximate cause of the collision was the LP’s port sheer onto the NA’s path. That sheer was linked to hydrodynamic interaction between the LP and a bank on her starboard side, described as the “bow cushion effect”. The principal dispute on appeal was not the occurrence of the sheer, but how fault should be attributed for the LP’s failure to detect or respond appropriately to the hydrodynamic conditions affecting her manoeuvrability. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court’s apportionment and held that both vessels were equally to blame, apportioning liability at 50:50.
In addition, the Court used the case to clarify the proper interpretation of COLREGS Rule 9(a), as incorporated into Singapore law via the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations. The Court examined whether Rule 9(a) should be interpreted consistently with its predecessor provision (Rule 25(a) of the 1960 Collision Regulations), and applied that interpretation to the conduct of the vessels in the narrow channel.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The NA is an LPG carrier registered in Surabaya, Indonesia. At the material time, she was about 160m long with a beam of about 25.6m, carrying approximately 59 tonnes of LPG. She displayed an all-round red light to indicate dangerous cargo, in addition to the standard navigation lights. The NA’s drafts at departure were about 5.5m forward and 6.2m aft.
The LP is a fully cellular container ship flying the Panama flag. She was larger than the NA, about 200m long and 32.2m in breadth. She was laden with containers weighing around 17,200mt. Her drafts at departure were relevant to the hydrodynamic analysis later in the judgment, being about 8.54m forward and 8.65m aft.
The collision occurred within the Surabaya Strait, approximately 50 nautical miles long, between the northeast coast of Java and the island of Madura. Weather was good with visibility around six miles. There was a northerly current associated with the ebbing tide, about 1.22m high. The NA was outbound from Gospier jetty in Surabaya to Kalbut at the eastern end of Java, travelling northwards towards the northern entrance of the Strait. The LP was inbound from the Evergreen container terminal in Kaohsiung, Taiwan to Tanjung Perak in Surabaya, travelling southwards from the northern entrance. Thus, they were on reciprocal courses within the Strait.
Within the Strait, the buoyage system marked a narrow channel with lateral buoys in a staggered pattern. It was undisputed that the buoyed channel constituted a narrow channel to which COLREGS Rule 9 applied. Northbound vessels were to keep the red lateral buoys on their starboard side, while southbound vessels were to keep such buoys on their port side. Within this buoyed channel lay a dredged channel, created by dredging works from 2014 to May 2015. The dredging deepened part of the buoyed channel from about 9.5m to up to 13m (chart datum) and widened the dredged section from about 100m to 150m (excluding slopes extending outward). The collision occurred in the vicinity of this dredged section.
Both vessels relied primarily on standard nautical charts rather than ECDIS. They used British Admiralty Chart No 975 (26 April 2012 edition). Importantly, the case turned on objective contemporaneous evidence. Both vessels had voyage data recorders (VDRs) capturing speed, heading and rudder angle, and wheelhouse and VHF communications. Additionally, each vessel had two sets of ARPA radar (X-band and S-band), with radar screengrabs captured automatically at 15-second intervals. The accuracy of the radar data was not disputed, and the Court emphasised that the radar images provided critical insight into the vessels’ relative positions in the final minutes.
As to the immediate sequence, the collision occurred just before midnight on 28 June 2015. The High Court and the Court of Appeal accepted that the LP experienced a significant sheer to port about a minute before the collision, onto the NA’s path. The LP attempted to use VHF radio to inform the NA that her steering was not responding. The NA noticed the sheer and took avoidance action by altering hard-to-starboard, but the collision could not be avoided. The trial judge found, and the parties did not dispute on appeal, that the port sheer resulted from hydrodynamic interaction between the LP and a bank on her starboard side, namely the bow cushion effect.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first and central issue was the apportionment of liability for the collision. While the proximate cause of the collision was the LP’s port sheer, the Court of Appeal had to determine where the fault lay in the chain of causation: specifically, whether the LP knew or ought to have known earlier that hydrodynamic forces were already impeding her ability to respond to helm action, and whether the LP’s pilot and bridge team took appropriate steps once those conditions were present.
A second key issue concerned the interpretation and application of COLREGS Rule 9(a) in the context of navigation within a narrow channel. Both vessels allegedly breached Rule 9(a). The Court of Appeal clarified how Rule 9(a) should be interpreted, including whether it should be read consistently with its predecessor in the 1960 Collision Regulations (Rule 25(a)). This interpretive exercise mattered because it informed what each vessel was required to do when navigating in the buoyed narrow channel and dredged section.
Finally, the Court had to assess other alleged breaches of COLREGS by each vessel, including whether the NA’s and LP’s conduct in the moments leading up to the collision contributed to the collision beyond the LP’s sheer. The Court’s approach required weighing multiple faults and determining whether the High Court’s 70:30 allocation properly reflected the relative blameworthiness.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court of Appeal began by framing the appeal around the “proper attribution of fault” for the port sheer. The proximate cause—hydrodynamic bow cushion effect leading to a port sheer—was accepted. The dispute was therefore about causative fault: whether the LP’s bridge team and pilot failed to detect the developing hydrodynamic effect in time, and whether their subsequent manoeuvres were appropriate. The Court noted that the last minute before the collision was the most critical, and that the bridge teams’ accounts differed. However, the Court placed substantial weight on objective data recorded by VDRs, AIS and ARPA radar screengrabs.
In analysing the LP’s conduct, the Court focused on whether the LP had sufficient earlier warning that some hydrodynamic force was already in play. This question was tied to the timing of the LP’s VHF communication to the NA that steering was not responding. The Court considered whether, before that communication, the LP knew or ought to have known that her ability to respond to helm action was being impeded. If so, the LP’s failure to take earlier corrective measures would constitute fault contributing to the collision.
The Court also examined the legal significance of the LP pilot’s “midships” order. The judgment extract indicates that the Court treated this as a potentially wrongful order, and then analysed its significance under COLREGS Rules 8(a), 8(c) and 8(d), as well as Rule 14. The Court’s analysis addressed whether giving a “midships” order in the circumstances was inconsistent with the obligations of safe manoeuvring and proper use of helm and engines under the collision regulations. The Court further considered whether the pilot’s order could be characterised as a novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) that might break the chain of causation or otherwise affect apportionment. The Court’s reasoning, as reflected in the judgment outline, indicates a careful doctrinal treatment of how wrongful manoeuvring orders interact with the physical hydrodynamic cause.
Beyond the LP’s immediate response, the Court analysed whether the LP complied with COLREGS Rules 2 and 9(a). Rule 2 embodies the general duty to use all available means to avoid collision and to comply with the rules in a manner consistent with good seamanship. Rule 9(a) concerns navigation in narrow channels, including the requirement that vessels proceed in such a manner as to keep as near to the outer limit of the channel on their respective sides as is safe and practicable. The Court examined the interpretation of Rule 9(a) and whether it should be aligned with the predecessor Rule 25(a) of the 1960 Collision Regulations. This interpretive clarification was important because it affected what “safe and practicable” demanded in a buoyed channel with a dredged section and a bank that produced the bow cushion effect.
The Court also assessed whether it was safe and practicable for the LP to have gone further to starboard past the western edge of the dredged channel. This was not merely a factual question but a legal one: the Court treated the narrow channel obligations as requiring a practical, safety-oriented approach that accounts for local conditions, including hydrodynamic effects. In parallel, the Court analysed the NA’s alleged breaches of COLREGS, including breaches of Rules 5 and 7, and a breach of Rule 6, as well as the NA’s breach of Rule 9(a). The Court’s approach suggests that it did not treat the NA’s avoidance action as automatically exculpatory; rather, it considered whether the NA’s navigation within the narrow channel and its compliance with the collision regulations contributed to the collision risk.
Ultimately, the Court’s reasoning culminated in a weighing exercise. While the LP’s port sheer was the proximate cause, the Court concluded that the NA also bore fault, and that the High Court’s allocation did not adequately reflect the relative blame. The Court held that both vessels were equally to blame, apportioning liability at 50:50. This reflects a view that fault was not confined to the physical phenomenon (bow cushion effect) but extended to navigational decisions, compliance with the collision rules, and the adequacy of responses to developing conditions.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part by overturning the High Court’s liability apportionment. Instead of 70:30 in favour of the LP, the Court held that liability should be apportioned equally at 50:50 between the NA and the LP.
Practically, this means that each vessel’s owner would bear half of the recoverable collision losses, subject to the procedural mechanics of the two reciprocal in rem actions and any subsequent issues relating to damages, costs, and limitation (if raised). The decision also provides authoritative guidance on how Rule 9(a) should be interpreted and applied in narrow channels within Singapore’s collision regulatory framework.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for maritime practitioners because it demonstrates that, in collision litigation, the proximate cause of the accident does not automatically determine the apportionment of liability. Even where a hydrodynamic phenomenon is accepted as the immediate physical cause of a sheer, the court will scrutinise whether the affected vessel knew or ought to have known about the developing impairment and whether its bridge team’s manoeuvres complied with the COLREGS and the standards of good seamanship.
From a regulatory interpretation standpoint, the Court of Appeal’s clarification of COLREGS Rule 9(a) is particularly valuable. Rule 9(a) is frequently litigated in narrow channel collisions, and the Court’s discussion of how it should be interpreted—potentially in line with or distinct from the predecessor Rule 25(a)—helps practitioners frame arguments about what “safe and practicable” requires in real navigational environments. The decision also underscores that “safe and practicable” is context-sensitive, including where dredged channels, banks, and hydrodynamic effects create navigational hazards.
Finally, the case illustrates the evidential importance of objective navigational records. The Court relied on VDR data, AIS, and especially ARPA radar screengrabs captured at intervals. For counsel, this highlights the need to focus expert analysis on contemporaneous objective data in the final minutes before collision, and to connect that data to the legal elements of fault under the COLREGS and general collision principles.
Legislation Referenced
- Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 179, 1996 Rev Ed) — incorporation of collision regulations
- Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations (Cap 179, Rg 10, 1990 Rev Ed) — reg 3 (incorporation of COLREGS)
- International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS) — Rules 2, 5, 6, 7, 8(a), 8(c), 8(d), 8(e), 9(a), 14
- International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1960 — Rule 25(a) (predecessor provision discussed)
Cases Cited
- [2023] SGCA 20 (this is the case itself as provided in the metadata)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGCA 20 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.